The double-edged sword of job insecurity: When and why job insecurity promotes versus inhibits supervisor-rated performance

Abstract

Research findings on the effects of job insecurity on performance are mixed. Some studies show a negative relationship between job insecurity and performance; while others indicate a positive association, a curvilinear or a null relationship. We suggest that the relation between employees' subjective job insecurity and supervisor-rated performance is more complex than previously assumed. Based on stress appraisal theory, this study investigates when and why job insecurity is associated with supervisor-rated performance via two different pathways. Specifically, we propose that these two mechanisms (i.e., impression management and workplace deviance) are contingent on the dyadic leader-member exchange (LMX) between the subordinate and his/her supervisor. In a three-wave survey using data collected from 314 subordinates and their 69 supervisors in China, we found the paradoxical relations between job insecurity and supervisor-rated performance at different levels of LMX. Specifically, on the one hand, job insecurity was positively related to supervisor-rated performance via impression management when LMX was high; on the other hand, job insecurity was negatively related to supervisor-rated performance via workplace deviance when LMX was low. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.